Empty storefronts, unpaved lots area's biggest obstacles
Walter Haglund thinks revitalizing the Route 51 corridor ecomomy requires some changes, both big and small. The small improvements involve basic beautification, while the big ones involve redeveloping an entire strip of vacant storefronts.
Through $95,000 in grants from state Rep. Harry Readshaw (D-36), Economic Development South hired Urban Design Ventures, a firm of community planning consultants, to do a comprehensive study of how to attract new business.
Haglund studied Baldwin, Brentwood and Whitehall business areas since February, addressing 17 different business districts.
"It's the spine of the South Hills region," said Haglund. "We need to overcome the present ownership and try to redevelop those areas. We have several recommendations we are discussing with the county to try to get some public ownership of those properties."
Vacancies in Brentwood's 51 corridor are crippling to the area. Haglund said that the empty properties and unpaved parking lots are the areas' biggest obstacle to overcome.
There are a few simple solutions to encourage new businesses in the communities, such as supporting existing businesses.
Public safety improvements, such as pedestrian connectors, and making the area more attractive to young families are essential to revitalizing business, said Haglund.
"We are all familiar with Allegheny County's loss of population," said Haglund. "The South Hills has experienced this like many other portions of the county."
Haglund's research included studies of land usage, traffic, parking and infrastructure needs, and structural conditions of buildings. This basic rubric served as the basis of his analysis.
Additional market research is ongoing, with Haglund distributing surveys to businesses and customers.
"We need to identify a primary and secondary market for each of the areas," said Haglund. "Some of the shopping areas are national, others are regional, and we want to find a potential mix of stores and what is missing and needed, along with the competition."
When all of the research is done, Haglund hopes to develop a community vision. The plan will outline how land can be used, what actions need to be taken and how to implement these plans.
"It's not just what we can do, but we also have to identify who will take part in these plans, whether it's public or private or a combination," said Haglund. "You can't accomplish this overnight, but there need to be short- and long-term goals and a time schedule."
Haglund said the area needs a basic cosmetic makeover, including landscaping, signage, curb cutting and other beautification steps. Haglund also thinks parking is a problem the area faces.
The study is scheduled to wrap up in December.
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer friendly version
- send to friend
- 704 reads
instead of $95,000 to figure out what to do with the vacant buildings. how about using the money to tear the buildings down, and then put a $2 for sale sign in the empty lot.
that advice is free and won't cost anything
Another fine example of government money waste. There are so many organizations out there that could have put money like that to use, instead it goes to somebody to STUDY how to promote business and what to do with adandoned property. In the end there will be nothing to show for it. What A waste of taxpayer money.
You are both correct. It is also a planned government takeover of private property. Look at what this planning guy said. It was, "We need to overcome the present ownership and try to redevelop those areas." In other words, Economic Development South (actually, John Slater and his cronies) doesn't like the Levitske family owning so much of the private property. The Levitskes and other property owners stay in compliance with zoning and community ordinances but that is not enough. Economic Development South has a "vision." That vision doesn't include the Levitskes, it seems.
You must be a relative of the Levitskes to defend what they have done to the South Hills. It is a crime how they take care of their property and what they do to their tenants.
More Levitske bashing. I'm not a relative or friend and have never met them. What I am is a person who does not believe in the government or some government-connected group taking private property away from any citizen. I've heard the stories about how badly the Levitskes treat their tenants. Those tenants have a choice to move somewhere else and if they do not that is their problem. What you are condoning is a takeover of private property by group like Econ. Dev. South to give that property away to other companies. I do not approve of that, pure and simple. They could come after your property next.
Catalyst,
What you are then saying is that one family can keep our main thoroughfare looking like a slum. This family screws over tenants, they leave and the borough suffers by looking at empty run down buildings. What would happen to the borough’s revenue stream if the Route 51 corridor was vibrant with business? Perhaps our tax millage could be lowered and more renovations in the borough could take place. This is an area which must be addressed. The Levitske family is holding the borough down. We should not all suffer due to one family. What if your next door neighbor never cut their grass, and let abandoned cars set in the front yard? Would the borough have the right to step in for the sake of yourself and other neighbors? The same should apply to these horrible, rundown looking buildings in the heart of our community
I have to agree with you. The Levitske's have to shape up or ship out. There is too much at stake. They are bringing our whole borough down. Something needs to be done.
Donkey Slayer,
Good point. Let me clarify. First and foremost, I am a private property rights advocate. I distrust government or holier-than-thou "visionaries" who take private property from one owner only to give it to someone else; usually to some politically connected people and/or friends and campaign contributors.
If the Levitskes or other property owners are derelict in their community responsibility to keep up their property, then prove it. There are already numerous existing ordinances to force them to do it. Maybe Brentwood, Whitehall, and the City are not enforcing the law. Or, just maybe, all of the property owners are in compliance. I am not going to defend the Levitskes or their alledgedly unfair business practices. Their lawyers will do that more than adequately.
Rather than selecting one property owner for government takeover, perhaps we need to widen ALL of Route 51 from the tunnel to the new toll road. Take over ALL of the private property from every rightful owner. That would eliminate all of the congestion and existing businesses in one fell swoop and the Econ. Dev. South and their government partners could create a completely new business/residential corridor from Pittsburgh to Jefferson Hills. Reconstruct the Overbrook/Route 88/51 bottleneck at the same time. A blank slate. I guess that wouldn't work due to the fact that several people connected to Econ. Dev. South own property along that corridor. We couldn't do that now, could we?
I agree that goverment has no right to take property just for the sake of taking it. However they do have the right to enforce building standards. Driving from South hills Country Club to the 51/88 intersection you will see many buildings that look as if they are going to collapse. I would suggest that the borough as well as the BBWBOA try to work with the Levitsky family in the development of this area. Perhaps there are renovation grants available for this. By offering grant money, rental stipualtions could be put into place. If large sums of money were thrown at Giant Eagle for the towne center, I am sure it could be done for this stretch of road. It should be developed in the likeness of route 19 through the Mount Lebanon shopping district. That area has 2 lanes of traffic in each direction and is a congested area yet it is a clean attractive area which supports a lot of small local businesses. If the Levitskys are unwilling to work with the community they should be offered fair market value for the area in question and then asked to leave. Again, one family should not have the right to control the future of a community.
We agree on one thing. If buildings are in disrepair, then the local municipality does have a responsibility to enforce the law. I say that is NOT being done. If you want the area cleaned up, I say go to your local officials and get them off their dead behinds. Enforce the laws. I would rather see it done this way than to allow a group of businessmen calling themselves the Econ. Dev. South taking private property away from business owners that they do not like (but they LOVE their Route 51 property and will use any means to pry it from their hands).